Is U.S. education truly getting worse?

[The Gnomon]

Also, SAT's and most of the other tests used are "norm-referenced" (http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/assment/as8lk1.htm)
so they don't actually tell us much about how present students' actual knowlege compares to that of past students. With a norm-referenced test, your score depends not just on how many questions you got right or wrong, but with how everyone else in a random sampling did on the same test in the same year. If everyone get's smarter from one year to the next, then you need to also get smarter to get the same score.

Good point. If scores represent relative standing, they cannot be meaningfully compared across different testing populations (years).

Also - the question of "What needs to be taught?" is highly relevant. In my days, basic understanding of the use of a slide rule was essential to technical success in higher education. Now it's irrelevant. Basic computer skills are now relevant; in my earlier education days computers were legendary vacuum-tubed beasts in underground bunkers, accessable to elite scientists only.
The use of logarithm and trigonometric tables was once an essential part of mathematics education.
Continents didn't move. DNA wasn't known about. Noble gases didn't form compounds. You got your feet x-rayed when you bought shoes. . .
There were grammar distinctions made that no-one now seems to understand (modes {subjunctive, imperative}, rules against split infinitives . . .) or care about, as we seem to be able to get by without them, for the most part.
What was important then, is not so now; what is important now, either wasn't then, or didn't exist.
So . . . how can any meaningful comparison be made, even given a situation in which all the other variables (dropout rates, philosophies of education . . .) are controlled?
A better question is: are our educational institutions doing the best possible job of teaching what today's students need. Not a simple question, but one which needs to be addressed.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Saw an article today saying that the major educational problem is discipline due to a lack of administrative and community support. Apparently its common for half a class period to be spent on disciplinary issues, because the kids know the teachers are powerless without backing from the administrations. The administrations won't discipline the kids because it cuts into the attendance quotas for NCLB and other metrics.

Screaming obscenities, throwing furniture, and physical assault are apparently common.

http://www.cfpmidweek.com/weeks/IssuePDFs/vo5i24web.pdf

 

[Prometheus]

A better question is: are our educational institutions doing the best possible job of teaching what today's students need. Not a simple question, but one which needs to be addressed.

I agree with most of your post, but I'd argue that your final question is actually a simple question, with a simple answer: "Nope!"

Instead, how about: "What do students today need, and how can schools actually help them get it?"

 

[Flo]

It's not too far beyond me. The stakeholders in having a populace easily swayed by invalid argument, attractive-but-faulty logic, and other devious methods of persuasion are numerous and powerful. Business, politicians, religous leaders are some who come to mind. A clear-thinking populace who could arrive at valid logical conclusions is not in their best interest. Therefore, teaching clear thinking in the schools is not demanded by politicians, the business community, or institutional churches.

In the words of Jonathan Kozol

The first goal and primary function of [...] public school is not to educate good people, but good citizens. It is the function which we call in enemy nations "state indoctrination."

 

[drkitten]

I agree with most of your post, but I'd argue that your final question is actually a simple question, with a simple answer: "Nope!"

An overly simple question. No human-built instutition has ever been able to deliver "the best possible job" at anything.

Instead, how about: "What do students today need, and how can schools actually help them get it?"

Both good questions, but the second may be premature. I submit that schools today are helping today's students get what they need. Improvements are certainly possible. But a partial success (which is what the current US school system delivers) should not be made into the enemy of the inaccessible and impossible complete success.

The basic problem is that the needs are outstripping the capacities of the existing system. FIfty years ago, universal basic literacy was a worthwhile goal within reach of achievable. Today that has been achieved, but it's no longer a worthwhile goal -- it's far too low a bar. But to abandon the promise of universal literacy would not be a step forward....

 

[Prometheus]

Recently, I've come across a lot of anecdotal accounts that suggest that getting accepted into U.S. colleges is more difficult now than it was even a decade ago--that colleges have been able to raise the bar for admissions because the pool of highly qualified applicants has increased in size and average qualification (anyone got any good data on this?). If this is true, that would seem to suggest that U.S. education is getting better, not worse, wouldn't it?

 

[Dancing David]

Unfortunately (and I know the scientifically geeked out JREF community won't like this), "hard data" isn't the be all/end all here, since that data can be misleading, only tell part of the story, etc. For example, higher test scores might mean the tests are easier, not that the kids are doing better - and don't even get me started on kids who are "pushed through" or otherwise given numerous and unbelievable breaks that do them no favors. Not saying such data shouldn't be counted though (I have to mention that or sure as sunshine some Einstein will go "oh so you don't think hard data should count at all!!" ).

I would say there is more the issue of teaching to the test. If all that is taught is the test , well then that is what you learn.

NCLB was not a great idea but it has caused schools to pay attention, unfortunately schools boards and legislatures are what they are.

 

[Dancing David]

Saw an article today saying that the major educational problem is discipline due to a lack of administrative and community support. Apparently its common for half a class period to be spent on disciplinary issues, because the kids know the teachers are powerless without backing from the administrations. The administrations won't discipline the kids because it cuts into the attendance quotas for NCLB and other metrics.

Screaming obscenities, throwing furniture, and physical assault are apparently common.

http://www.cfpmidweek.com/weeks/IssuePDFs/vo5i24web.pdf

It probably varies from school district to schools district.

the main thing is to call the parents, the students usually get worse at home than they ever do at school. I work in a twin town of about 150,000.

Our problem is that we have large turn over in our population, children that come from urban districts usually spend quitre a bit of time in discipline before they figure out choices and consequences.

 

[drkitten]

Recently, I've come across a lot of anecdotal accounts that suggest that getting accepted into U.S. colleges is more difficult now than it was even a decade ago--that colleges have been able to raise the bar for admissions because the pool of highly qualified applicants has increased in size and average qualification (anyone got any good data on this?). If this is true, that would seem to suggest that U.S. education is getting better, not worse, wouldn't it?

Not really. "Getting accepted into US colleges" has never really been an issue except for the top, top flight of schools. Which are getting more selective, but also account for a tiny number of students. The vast majority of US schools practice essentially open admission, where the only criterion for admission is that your check clears.

What has happened is simply that more people are applying, and more people are applying to more schools over a wider area.

 

[Prometheus]

Not really. "Getting accepted into US colleges" has never really been an issue except for the top, top flight of schools. Which are getting more selective, but also account for a tiny number of students. The vast majority of US schools practice essentially open admission, where the only criterion for admission is that your check clears.

What has happened is simply that more people are applying, and more people are applying to more schools over a wider area.

I'm still trying to find some hard data, but, absent that, isn't the U.S. population aging. That is, aren't there fewer high school/college age people around than in the previous generation. If more people are applying isn't it plausible that it's at least partially because more people are well-qualified to apply?

And what's going on at all the lower echelon schools that are practicing open admission? If they're getting more applicants and it's also the case that primary/secondary education is declining in quality, then don't all those schools find it necessary to lower their curriculum standards?

 

[bigred]

I would say there is more the issue of teaching to the test. If all that is taught is the test , well then that is what you learn.

yep.

NCLB was not a great idea but it has caused schools to pay attention, unfortunately schools boards and legislatures are what they are.

I don't think it was a bad idea per se, except making it the "be all/end all" aspect. Standardized tests are good way to ensure a level playing field in many respects. But it has the failings you mention. As one criteria used, in fact, I think it's great. It just can't be "it."

 

[drkitten]

I'm still trying to find some hard data, but, absent that, isn't the U.S. population aging.

Yes in relative terms, but not as much in absolute terms -- the percentage of the population that is under 25 is going down, but because the population as a whole is still increasing, the number of bodies-in-seats is not decreasing as fast.

And what's going on at all the lower echelon schools that are practicing open admission? If they're getting more applicants and it's also the case that primary/secondary education is declining in quality, then don't all those schools find it necessary to lower their curriculum standards?

Yup. The "race to the bottom" is well-documented.

 

[bigred]

Saw an article today saying that the major educational problem is discipline due to a lack of administrative and community support. Apparently its common for half a class period to be spent on disciplinary issues, because the kids know the teachers are powerless without backing from the administrations. The administrations won't discipline the kids because it cuts into the attendance quotas for NCLB and other metrics.

Screaming obscenities, throwing furniture, and physical assault are apparently common.

http://www.cfpmidweek.com/weeks/IssuePDFs/vo5i24web.pdf

Yep. This is the biggest concern/complaint I hear from teachers - on an order of magnitude.

the main thing is to call the parents, the students usually get worse at home than they ever do at school. I work in a twin town of about 150,000.

Surely you don't mean in terms of discipline Discipline has largely become passe, even shunned. Teachers can barely blink at students nowdays for fear of a lawsuit, and spineless/incompetent parents are all the rage. They think taking away one of Johnny's 50 video games is a legit punishment then wonder why it doesn't seem to help. Must be the system.

 

[genesplicer]

Part of the difficulty we face is the fact that we have a very heterogeneous population. Moreso than almost any other country. In Japan, for example, where the population is more homogeneous, you can use limited methods with greater success. Here, we have to account for many variables that other, more monolithic cultures rarely have to deal with.

Secondly, many other countries track kids in a different way from us in the US. For example, they may begin a battery of tests early in the child's school career to determine if the kid is "College Bound" or not. Once tracked, the kid will go to college prep schools or to some sort of trade school. The testing in question in some of the posts here is usually limited to the college-bound kids, whereas in the US we test all the kids, so we are automatically at a disadvantage.

I'm not saying that our poor performance is strictly based on these two things, but they are factors to consider...

And discipline (Or lack thereof) can have a HUGE impact on class achievement. I can give you some war stories as evidence, if you like...

 

[Tippit]

I hear all the time that the U.S. public school system has deteriorated, and quality of education is worse now than XX years in the past. I am bombarded by damning anecdotes, and nearly swept away with the sincere and fervent emotions of those assaulting a "broken" system. But before I join the chorus of condemnation, I wish to verify my (and others') assumptions. I don't like singing in falsetto.

Here is what I've been able to find so far, plus my concerns about the quality of data.


U.S. Math scores rank very poorly compared to other industrialized countries.
apa.org/monitor/mar05/scores.html (sorry, still can't link)

Concerns: This study has not existed for a long period of time, so the only thing I can see from it is that we currently rank poorly. I cannot infer decreasing quality unless I am given other data to complete the picture. Also, the difference between U.S. and first place is about 10%. Could a dichotomy between low-performing inner-city schools and standard school districts lower our average scores?


Standardized tests - I wasn't able to find any of these that kept the same standards over the past 30 years. One person I know claims that tests are being dumbed down, teachers protesting any version that reveals them to be incompetent.

Concern: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I still need more.


Literacy comparisons are slightly more sophisticated anecdotes, at least when I encounter them. Usually they take an example of 19th century writing and compare it with current classroom creations. The difference is vast.

Concern: Isn't there a selection process for which 19th century letters and other works survive? A Civil War documentary would hardly choose an unintelligible letter over one that is poignant, insightful, and eloquent. I can't be sure that these are fair comparisons - not just their best against our worse.


Anecdotes. Yes, anecdotes. But there are so many of them! I have a friend who tells me of his school's multi-million-dollar football stadium, but molding science textbooks. I hear public school science teachers who complain of $200 budgets. My own mother tells me that she never would have learned of World War II had not her father been involved in it. There are so many stories, seemingly a different dozen from each new person I meet.

Concern: These are still just stories, perhaps modified by time, distance, and retelling. Many of these I hear close to source, but in the end I still have no data, no large-scale facts to make quantified judgments on and from.


Conclusion: I have a collection of impressions and data that doesn't tell the whole story. Is this enough to reasonably conclude a declining school system, or is it merely a tower of leaky buckets? Where do I go from here for hard data?

You might review Norman Dodd and the Reese Commission, an investigation into tax-exempt foundations during 1953 which attempted to determine if certain foundations wielded undue influence in the US, including apparent attempts to systematically dumb-down the US educational system.

 

[Prometheus]

You might review Norman Dodd and the Reese Commission, an investigation into tax-exempt foundations during 1953 which attempted to determine if certain foundations wielded undue influence in the US, including apparent attempts to systematically dumb-down the US educational system.

Wait. Is this still the Education forum, or have we switched over to CT now?

 

[Prometheus]

Yes in relative terms, but not as much in absolute terms -- the percentage of the population that is under 25 is going down, but because the population as a whole is still increasing, the number of bodies-in-seats is not decreasing as fast.

In the links below, though, show some interesting patterns. From 1970 to the present, enrollment rates for High Schools have remained relatively constant, while those for undergrad, graduate and professional schools have about doubled. Also, percentage of HS students completing advanced coursework in math and science has about doubled, and reading scores have steadily increased as well.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=16
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=65
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=97
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=147

Yup. The "race to the bottom" is well-documented.

Documentation, please?

I've heard all sorts of anecdotal pessimism, but frankly, none of it accords with my personal experience teaching at the graduate and undergraduate levels in public and private colleges. I've only seen curricula and teaching methods improve, and students getting smarter. I don't believe there's any real, hard evidence suggesting that educational quality has declined. And the little that we can confidently infer from demographic data and somewhat less than perfectly valid test scores, such as those I linked to above, seems to me to point in the other direction.

 

[Dancing David]

Yep. This is the biggest concern/complaint I hear from teachers - on an order of magnitude.



Surely you don't mean in terms of discipline Discipline has largely become passe, even shunned. Teachers can barely blink at students nowdays for fear of a lawsuit, and spineless/incompetent parents are all the rage. They think taking away one of Johnny's 50 video games is a legit punishment then wonder why it doesn't seem to help. Must be the system.

The ones that cause the most problems are often the ones with the harshest discipline at home. They dred the call home more than the 'deiscipline refferal'.

Now arrogant little snot balls from the middle class are another issue. they usually aren't as much of a problem.

My kid knows he has to write an essay for my wife if he acts out. He dreds that.

Funny niether of my kids were ever spanked, yet they self regulate rather well.

It is the consistancy of the parent's boundaries that matters.

Most parents get in trouble because they say one thing and then do another.

warn the child, give them a chance, enforce the consequence works really well.

The main problem is when parents whine, moan and yell but never set a consequence.

let the kids knwo that the TV is an earned priviledge, you don't meet the expectations, you don't get your TV.

It never ceased to amaze me when i was doing assesment, a parent would complain about thier kids behavior, and they had new clothes and a new haicut and new whatever.

I told them, it is just like a job, if your kid meets the expectation they earn the privilege.

Tell them that they have to not swear to earn the TV, if they swear, then they haven't earned it. It goes away that day and the next.

They would get real upset by the idea that thier child might have nothing in their room but a mattress and some clothes.

But hey, if they like to get punched by a child, that was their problem.

 

[bigred]

Child rearing/discipline is a rather large topic in itself, dont' want to sidetrack too much.....bottom line being lacking/outright "lame" parents (in one way or other) are a huge part of the problem IMO.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Heard a Harvard Med School clinical psychologist on NPR talking about different parenting styles. Authoritive=caring, attentive,state rules and consequences. Authoritarian=rigid, rules, "Because I said so" and punishment. Permissive wimp=let the child express itself. whatever. Permissive absent =who cares?